Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Ole Uncle John Date: Oct 7, 2005 9:14pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: sound quality MP3 vs WAV

Thanks for your reply. I'll consider FLAC when I begin archiving lossless. Due to storage and financial reasons (OK also laziness), I've always burned WAV and deleated lossless from my HD.

Now that I've purchased a laptop that burns DVD and realize just how much I can store on one disk I may start archiving all my lossless for future use.

Are most traders out there as happy to recieve FLAC as SHN? Would a conversion from SHN to FLAC in the lineage bother anyone? Thanks

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Oct 9, 2005 4:45am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: shn vs flac again

Would a conversion from SHN to FLAC in the lineage bother anyone?

Undocumented lineage changes bother people very much, especially since many original .shn sets are documented at and people keep track of circulating material through there. Even if it's just a changeover from shn>flac because you feel like it, the txt file must be updated to explain your change. Otherwise, people suspect something else may have happened, good or bad. Boundary fix? Rerip from CD, and txt file lazily taken from an original seed? No way to tell.

Usual advice to keep things simple is to keep the fileset as it is unless there is a reason to tweak the fileset apart from shn>flac. After the tweak, put the changed set into .flac instead of .shn while you're at it (and clearly update the txt).

I'm throwing this in about the txt file because it's easy for people to do an easy shn>flac op and then *not* record that that's all they did.

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2005-10-09 11:45:23